lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 From the other thread about the £24m settlement.... No mention of P Murray.... Absolutely nothing to do with Paul Murray. This was a claim by the Club against CB relating to various aspects of their part in CW acquisition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The claim is for the loss of p Murray money 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Your quoted info only states that Murray tabled an alternative offer. SDM opted to take the £27.5m offered by CW as opposed to the potential £25m from pmurray. How can you sue someone because a wrong decision was made? CB were being pursued because they did do things correctly & were negligent. Because CB conned during the higher offer. The offer was 27 million the investment in reality was zero. So rangers lost out on p Murray 25 million due to a CB con. That's what we are suing for. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 No, it says that Whyte’s bid persuaded Paul Murray NOT to launch alternative funding. You were provided with the evidence that you asked for. If you choose not to believe that it was used as an argument in court, then that is your prerogative, but you could at least have read what it actually stated. OK, so the CW offer persuaded the board not to have a share offer - the point still remains that SDM CHOSE CW's offer....how can you sue someone because you made a bad decision? CB are being sued because they were complicit in a conspiracy/plan to renage on their financial obligations etc. P Murrays involvement is that he & the rest of the board waited till the 11th hour before proposing their share issue idea - why was the £25m share issue not put into place months before hand? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 If there had been no rival Paul Murray bid the liquidators would still have pursued Collyer Bristow in exactly the same manner. The original claim was for £140m plus costs, the out of court settlement of £24M has no link to Murray's bid. This is a claim in respect of damages for deceit and/or conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and/or breach of duty etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The claim is for the loss of p Murray money It is not GS, I'm positive of this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,042 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 there is something about the name murray and failure the go hand in hand 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The claim against Collyer Bristow was for the £25m investment the club was denied by opting for the Whyte £1 "purchase" as opposed to the £25m re-capitalisation from a Paul Murray fronted consortium. There's a misconception that Paul Murray tried to buy the club in 2011 he didn't it was a re-capitalisation which is something very different. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The claim against Collyer Bristow was for the £25m investment the club was denied by opting for the Whyte £1 "purchase" as opposed to the £25m re-capitalisation from a Paul Murray fronted consortium. There's a misconception that Paul Murray tried to buy the club in 2011 he didn't it was a re-capitalisation which is something very different. The claim was far more complicated than that. The original basis of the claim for loss of value of assets alone was for in excess of £100m! In effect, the Club alleged that the actions of CB (or more accurately one of their Partners) resulted in a £5.5m "fire sale" of 1st and youth team playing squads, Ibrox and Murray Park and the Rangers Brand in general. The claim also factored in Administration and Liquidation Costs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Forlan is right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.